• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sudan 2023 Thread- Discussion on Our Evacuation Capabilities

Ottawa deploys rapid deployment team to Djibouti to provide emergency response
The Canadian Press · Posted: Apr 21, 2023 11:10 PM EDT | Last Updated: April 21

liberal-caucus-20230308.jpg

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly, pictured in Ottawa last month, says the Canadian Embassy in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, has temporarily suspended in-person operations due to security concerns. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

The federal government says it has deployed members of its Global Affairs Standing Rapid Deployment Team to Djibouti due to the volatile and rapidly deteriorating situation in Sudan.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said the Canadian Embassy in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, has temporarily suspended in-person operations.

The Rapid Deployment Team can provide emergency response, co-ordination, consular assistance and logistical support, she said.

The federal government says the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are also planning for contingencies but gave no further details.

Roughly 1,500 Canadians registered in Sudan
On Thursday, Joly said Canada has no means of evacuating citizens from Sudan, where violence has drastically escalated between the country's army and its rival paramilitary force.

Global Affairs Canada has said it knows of roughly 1,500 Canadians registered as being in the northeast African country.

"The situation in Sudan is volatile and deteriorating rapidly," Joly said in a news release on Friday. "Canada continues to call for an end to violence and stands with the Sudanese people as they strive for peace.

"We are actively monitoring the situation in Sudan and working with neighbouring countries, as well as with like-minded governments and the international community to co-ordinate the response to this crisis."

sudan.jpg

Smoke fills the sky in Khartoum on Friday. Joly said Canada has no means of evacuating citizens from Sudan, where violence has drastically escalated between the country's army and its rival paramilitary force. (Maheen S./The Associated Press)

Joly said consular services remain available to Canadians in Sudan, but due to the security situation, these could be limited.

Officials in Ottawa are in regular contact with Canadians there, providing them with information and advice as the situation develops, she said.

The United States and other countries anticipate the violence to escalate and have been preparing to evacuate their citizens in Sudan.

Some of the heaviest fighting has been over airports.

The Pentagon has moved a small number of troops to a base in Djibouti to support an evacuation.

Gen. Mark Milley, chair of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, discussed the situation with defence officials from Germany, Italy and Canada at a gathering in Germany on Friday, a U.S. official said.

One topic was ensuring that any potential evacuation efforts did not conflict. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the deliberations.

 
I for one have never had any problems with the thought of a fleet air arm. But then I was a crayon eater .
There are only two groups utterly opposed to that concept the Airforce and strangely enough sections of the Navy.
 
Mechanical issues are random and can happen with new, barely used airframes that's meticulously maintained as well.
Too true but having a second aircraft available lessens the pain: we don't ever seem to have another airframe that we can draw on.
 
Too true but having a second aircraft available lessens the pain: we don't ever seem to have another airframe that we can draw on.
Even the US doesn't send double the number of aircraft per tasking.
 
Something something "everything that flies [with people in it] is under the RCAF"

But I digress. Back to Sudan.
I figured that BUT it does make sense for the RCN to have its own (insert aircraft type here) commanded and administered by the RCN.

Like Army should own tac hel....
 
I figured that BUT it does make sense for the RCN to have its own (insert aircraft type here) commanded and administered by the RCN.

Like Army should own tac hel....
Schitts Creek Comedy GIF by CBC


...only if the standards for flight safety, training, etc are the same as the RCAF. Make the RCAF the keepers of those standards and policies. I know the CA and RCN will say "well this doesn't work for [insert fleet]" but too bad.

None of this "those Air Force people are soft, we can push harder"...into the ground unintentionally.

Historically, the Army and Navy don't understand Crew Rest (for all, not just aircrew). Hell, the RCAF is just figuring how important crew rest is for the maintainers. "Pushing through" meant crashed aircraft and dead aircrew.
 
…and the Navy and Army have demonstrably thrown their respective aviation branches under the bus while they had capability development and funding responsibilities. They are the scorpions of the CAF; it’s simply in their nature to look after their core capabilities to the detriment of their aviation elements, and grumble when light blue eventually ponies up, begrudgingly at times, for the environmental aviation branches. $0.02
 
…and the Navy and Army have demonstrably thrown their respective aviation branches under the bus while they had capability development and funding responsibilities. They are the scorpions of the CAF; it’s simply in their nature to look after their core capabilities to the detriment of their aviation elements, and grumble when light blue eventually ponies up, begrudgingly at times, for the environmental aviation branches. $0.02
If only a TacHel guy got to be CCA years ago.

The Army screwed itself repeatedly with divestment of TacHel, and solely looked out for the Infantry and somewhat the ‘Armoured’ Corps for years.

Which also inarguably screwed the Infantry etc in the long run.
 
If only a TacHel guy got to be CCA years ago.
General Allard wore pilots wings, and was the first Commander Mobile Command in the 1960’s.

Of course, given that he was an infantry battalion and brigade commander in WWII and Korea, he’s probably not best described as a TacHel guy — more like a Van Doo that knew how to fly.
 
I think he meant the RCN should buy the RCAF 4 new planes.

Exactly.

Schitts Creek Comedy GIF by CBC


...only if the standards for flight safety, training, etc are the same as the RCAF. Make the RCAF the keepers of those standards and policies. I know the CA and RCN will say "well this doesn't work for [insert fleet]" but too bad.

None of this "those Air Force people are soft, we can push harder"...into the ground unintentionally.

Historically, the Army and Navy don't understand Crew Rest (for all, not just aircrew). Hell, the RCAF is just figuring how important crew rest is for the maintainers. "Pushing through" meant crashed aircraft and dead aircrew.

I really don't care which empire or silo gets try and manipulate them, or what color uniform the crew wares.

I want air frames available to fly pers and material to our deployed ships, and I want that service on call when I need it, and I don't want to have to try and compete for some priority position with the other services.
 
I really don't care which empire or silo gets try and manipulate them, or what color uniform the crew wares.

I want air frames available to fly pers and material to our deployed ships, and I want that service on call when I need it, and I don't want to have to try and compete for some priority position with the other services.
Sure, but the CA will want exactly the same, for the same reasons. And so will the RCAF.

In that scenario, each service gets C-17s, or at minimum, C-130Js. Unless the maint and other organizations are fully connected (and who will lead that?), those disparate fleets are unlikely to be buying spares, etc together to capitalize on economies of scale, such as it is for a small fleet like ours.

Also, what happens when parts/pers aren't needed? Do they get lent to the other services for lower priority taskings? And looping back to what others have mentioned in this tangent, will the RCN and CA want to pay the sums of money to procure and maintain that capability, when it is so different than their core capabilities? Or will the leadership look at the costs and say "wait...the RCAF already does this - why are we paying for the same capability"?

The US sort of has what you're suggesting - the USAF, USMC, and (I think) USN operate C-130s. But only the USAF operates C-17s and up. I'm not suggesting that just going along with what allied nations do is always right, but it's possible that a bunch of nations have gone around this buoy already, and due to costs/organizations/whatever decided to have airlift within one organization (except, as I said, the US).

Anyways, mods - can we split this into the "aircraft to CA/RCN" thread?
 
Sure, but the CA will want exactly the same, for the same reasons. And so will the RCAF.

In that scenario, each service gets C-17s, or at minimum, C-130Js. Unless the maint and other organizations are fully connected (and who will lead that?), those disparate fleets are unlikely to be buying spares, etc together to capitalize on economies of scale, such as it is for a small fleet like ours.

Also, what happens when parts/pers aren't needed? Do they get lent to the other services for lower priority taskings? And looping back to what others have mentioned in this tangent, will the RCN and CA want to pay the sums of money to procure and maintain that capability, when it is so different than their core capabilities? Or will the leadership look at the costs and say "wait...the RCAF already does this - why are we paying for the same capability"?

The US sort of has what you're suggesting - the USAF, USMC, and (I think) USN operate C-130s. But only the USAF operates C-17s and up. I'm not suggesting that just going along with what allied nations do is always right, but it's possible that a bunch of nations have gone around this buoy already, and due to costs/organizations/whatever decided to have airlift within one organization (except, as I said, the US).

Anyways, mods - can we split this into the "aircraft to CA/RCN" thread?
I think the real point is that the RCAF doesn't have enough aircraft to do all the things it needs to do. If it did have enough it wouldn't be like pulling teeth for the RCN to get shipped the parts it needs when deployed...and to tie it back to this thread, aircraft availability wouldn't be an issue when discussing things like pulling Canadians out of the latest country in crisis.
 
Exactly.



I really don't care which empire or silo gets try and manipulate them, or what color uniform the crew wares.

I want air frames available to fly pers and material to our deployed ships, and I want that service on call when I need it, and I don't want to have to try and compete for some priority position with the other services.

Dude.... ;)

episode 8 thats kinda the whole point GIF
 
and to tie it back to this thread, aircraft availability wouldn't be an issue when discussing things like pulling Canadians out of the latest country in crisis.
That is certainly one aspect, but those aircraft also need a viable (and somewhat safe) airport to land and pick up the Canadians.

 
That is certainly one aspect, but those aircraft also need a viable (and somewhat safe) airport to land and pick up the Canadians.

Damn...and I thought transport aircraft availability was the only thing in the CAF that needed to be fixed!

😝
 
Sure, but the CA will want exactly the same, for the same reasons. And so will the RCAF.

In that scenario, each service gets C-17s, or at minimum, C-130Js. Unless the maint and other organizations are fully connected (and who will lead that?), those disparate fleets are unlikely to be buying spares, etc together to capitalize on economies of scale, such as it is for a small fleet like ours.

Also, what happens when parts/pers aren't needed? Do they get lent to the other services for lower priority taskings? And looping back to what others have mentioned in this tangent, will the RCN and CA want to pay the sums of money to procure and maintain that capability, when it is so different than their core capabilities? Or will the leadership look at the costs and say "wait...the RCAF already does this - why are we paying for the same capability"?

The US sort of has what you're suggesting - the USAF, USMC, and (I think) USN operate C-130s. But only the USAF operates C-17s and up. I'm not suggesting that just going along with what allied nations do is always right, but it's possible that a bunch of nations have gone around this buoy already, and due to costs/organizations/whatever decided to have airlift within one organization (except, as I said, the US).

Anyways, mods - can we split this into the "aircraft to CA/RCN" thread?

All I want is for the RCN to buy the RCAF 4 new transport planes. The RCAF can do what it wants with them, but when the RCN says hey I need a plane for this or that it's given a plane for that task. No fight, no push back. I'm fine with hercs. Doesn't have to be C17s.

If the CA needs the same thing then they should do it too. I'm not sure why the idea of more logistical capability is a bad thing. We don't have enough transport planes in the RCAF.

I don't think we need to re-establish the fleet air arm, but if the RCAF is going to complicate things because of silos and empires then maybe we should.
 
Back
Top